I'm always impressed when fans are willing to put way more thought into the writing than the writers were.
Things that don't add up:
- Thread starter Discofan
- Start date
I'm always impressed when fans are willing to put way more thought into the writing than the writers were.
That's pretty much always what I do.
It was presented to us that if Control gets the sphere data, it would achieve sentience.
According to the dictionary: Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.
Maybe it's me, but, Control seemed pretty sentient even without the data. I mean, it managed to kill everyone on the 31 station, frame Spock, inhabit Leland, and create a full-on holographic representation of three dead Starfleet admirals.
According to the dictionary: Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.
Maybe it's me, but, Control seemed pretty sentient even without the data. I mean, it managed to kill everyone on the 31 station, frame Spock, inhabit Leland, and create a full-on holographic representation of three dead Starfleet admirals.
I don't think the above was presented to us.
At most, Control would become more "fully" sentient/conscious/clever/sapient/godlike, which is always an option. Striving to be better is a good motivation for villains and heroes alike - and surely an optimal one for a hostile AI, which would have little use for wealth or women or even sandals-to-crush-thrones-with.
Timo Saloniemi
At most, Control would become more "fully" sentient/conscious/clever/sapient/godlike, which is always an option. Striving to be better is a good motivation for villains and heroes alike - and surely an optimal one for a hostile AI, which would have little use for wealth or women or even sandals-to-crush-thrones-with.
Timo Saloniemi
And even that last line has me scratching my head. Did we ever find out why, exactly, Control was so hellbent on destroying all life in the universe?
I still believe that both networks and writers think audiences are dumb and just don't pick up on things; especially now with all of the distractions at our disposal. In a way, I think they almost count on it. But the amount of plotholes and questions that sprung up this season was just unbelievable. I know writing for TV isn't easy, but, just how in the hell did things go unnoticed? Or, did they notice and the writers just didn't care or suspect that the viewers wouldn't?
Nah, they're probably right. Most people don't seem to care. A lot of TV and movies are written like this these days, and majority of people don't seem to even notice.
I don't think it is a lack of caring. It's more a lack of time. It's not like they get to sit down and go over it and polish every which way. But, I also like to believe that people actually do care and I might be incredibly naïve.
Regardless, even if I pick up on plot holes and questions that doesn't automatically make it a negative experience for me. For me (and I'll admit this is probably just me) I don't mind plot holes because I feel more engaged with the material, more interested, more apt to go back and watch it again and again. For me, it's like a fantasy novel or mystery novel, where I am finding those pieces.
But, again, I'm probably on my own on that one.
ETA: Case in point:
Probably because Control could do a Dr. Strange and calculate the odds that such life would be a threat to it and would seek to eliminate such a threat.
Last edited:
Good mystery or fantasy novels are not usually riddled with glaring plot holes. That is kind of one of the (many) requirements to qualify as 'good'.
Whoops, should amend that. I meant more fantasy and mystery novels in general that I have read over the years. It still engages me in some way, and I find that "good" though that is obviously a highly subjective experience.
I’m largely the opposite. If I start to feel the writers haven’t bothered to craft a coherent story, I begin to question why I should bother to invest in it.
Yeah, I figured I was an outlier. That's why I largely find people's complaints about stories odd. Not wrong or anything. It's just not the same experience for me.
Because even how carefully crafted our own explanations are, if the writers aren't consistent, they will unintentionally destroy any semblence of logic we come up for ourselves with their own sloppiness.
There are plot holes and there are "plot holes". Legit holes in the fundamental logic of the story usually break the experience. Little inconsistencies and mistakes tend to not be a bother, and are often intentionally done, to skip a beat that would slow the pace or things of that nature. But enough little issues can unite to form overwhelming problems.
I still want to know what happened to the captain they were on the way to pick up. It's not really a plot hole, just an odd stupid thing that doesn't matter but is indicative of the writers pushing the EMPHASIS button on everything and then dropping half of them completely. It's not the audiences' fault for engaging with the material as presented.
I still want to know what happened to the captain they were on the way to pick up. It's not really a plot hole, just an odd stupid thing that doesn't matter but is indicative of the writers pushing the EMPHASIS button on everything and then dropping half of them completely. It's not the audiences' fault for engaging with the material as presented.
I'll try to phrase this in a way that doesn't make it sound like I'll accept whatever. But, little issues don't form to big for me. If I am honest, if I am invested in the characters then I don't care what the writer's emphasize. I'm invested for what I'm invested in, which is the characters. And those little moments that appear as inconsistencies are usually the moments I revisit and see in a different light.
Again, I'm weird. I don't expect anyone else to do it. But, I'll just put it out there since I often struggle with why individuals throw up their hands at the bumps.
Yeah, I don’t tend to sweat the small stuff, at least until the big stuff starts to add up. Then the little stuff I would have ignored gets magnified.
But in this case they're not really not small issues. In the first episodes the signals and the identity and nature of the Red Angel are presented as a central mystery of the season. And people were engaged with that, and tried to guess what was going on. But all that was futile. The structure was not coherent, no sensible deductions could have been made, as nothing made sense anyway. There were similar issues with their central dilemma with the sphere data or the plan and motivations of the enemy.
I followed it...
You followed some version you made up in your head. The story as presented simply doesn't make sense. The numerous glaring plot holes have already been explained several times, so I can't be arsed to do it again for you to yet again refuse to see them.I followed it...
I didn't ask you to. You do you.
I don't understand why my enjoyment is so bothersome. I'm not disparaging you.
Last edited:
No doubt because a galaxy full of fleshbags would have an issue with an evil all-knowing AI hanging around and seek to either control it or destroy it.
Similar threads
